The number of days pending in this Court includes the time necessary for preparation of the record of appeal and the filing of briefs. These events occur before the assignment of the case to a Justice for preparation and circulation of a proposed opinion. The number of days pending also includes the time expended while awaiting special concurrences or dissents of other Justices after a majority of the Court has concurred in the release of a proposed opinion.

2An original decision is one on a case not previously heard by an appellate court.

I just briefly read the case. So this is as to if the Secretary of State is required to investigate a candidate for president if “credible evidence” is brought forth to show that the candidate may not be eligible.

I think that if Klayman were to win, then is Alabama SOS would rectoactiviely determine Obama’s eligiblity to be a candidate on the Alabama Ballot. Although the election has long pasted, it is Klayman’s hope that the Alabama SOS would state a declaration that Obama is (was) ineligible to be on the Alabama ballot. Although nothing could be done, I don’t think Obama would have much of a presidency left after such a declaration. The people would simply abandon the President Obama. Essentially, Obama policies would mean nothing and could essentially be rendered moot.

I think that if Klayman were to win, then is Alabama SOS would rectoactiviely determine Obama’s eligiblity to bea candidate on the Alabama Ballot.Although the election has long pasted, it is Klayman’s hope that the Alabama SOS would state a declaration that Obama is (was) ineligible to be on the Alabama ballot.Although nothing could be done, I don’t think Obama would have much of a presidency left after such a declaration.The people would simply abandon the President Obama.Essentially, Obama policies would mean nothing and could essentially be rendered moot.

john:
I think that if Klayman were to win, then is Alabama SOS would rectoactiviely determine Obama’s eligiblity to bea candidate on the Alabama Ballot.Although the election has long pasted, it is Klayman’s hope that the Alabama SOS would state a declaration that Obama is (was) ineligible to be on the Alabama ballot.Although nothing could be done, I don’t think Obama would have much of a presidency left after such a declaration.The people would simply abandon the President Obama.Essentially, Obama policies would mean nothing and could essentially be rendered moot.

A far more likely outcome, john, should your fantasy come to pass is that Alabama would be laughed out of the union.

john:
I think that if Klayman were to win, then is Alabama SOS would rectoactiviely determine Obama’s eligiblity to bea candidate on the Alabama Ballot.Although the election has long pasted, it is Klayman’s hope that the Alabama SOS would state a declaration that Obama is (was) ineligible to be on the Alabama ballot.Although nothing could be done, I don’t think Obama would have much of a presidency left after such a declaration.The people would simply abandon the President Obama.Essentially, Obama policies would mean nothing and could essentially be rendered moot.

john:
… it is Klayman’s hope that the Alabama SOS would state a declaration that Obama is (was) ineligible to be on the Alabama ballot.Although nothing could be done, I don’t think Obama would have much of a presidency left after such a declaration.

And would you say that a declaration that Obama was eligible would mean that there wouldn’t be much of a birther movement left?

I know reading ‘n stuff is not your strong suit but here’s what it all means.

The case before the court is about the SoS for Alabama, not the President, not the Presidential election, popular votes, eletcoral votes etc.

The case is, “Does the AL SoS have the legal duty to ‘investigate’ a presidential candidates ‘credentials’ or not.”

Now, the SoS has already stated he doesn’t nor is he obliged to, the legislative has passed no law or regulation that requires this action AND since this is a STATE level case, the STATE has no powers or authorities to alter or amend FEDERAL matters.

It must be added that Chief Justice of AL is a nut job border line ‘Bagger as is his protege in the court. However they are at BEST two voices in the SCoAL.

The absolute best outcome that could even possibly come out of this case is that the case is affirmed 7-2 with the nutbag duo writing a whiny screed about how “something should be done”.

Since however this relates to a federal matter there the issue will die.

You see, even IF in some magical topsy turvy world the entire SCoAL went Birfoon, the most they could say is that yes the SoS has a presumptive duty to review a candidates “credentials” but that could only be used at the NEXT presidential election. Where I am quite sure it will be challenged etc etc.

What-if #1. It’s unlikely the court will see a duty on the SOS’ part where no such duty has ever been found to exist.

john: then is Alabama SOS would rectoactiviely determine Obama’s eligiblity to be a candidate on the Alabama Ballot.

What-if #2. Even if the court ruled in Klayman’s favour, it would find the SOS would’ve had such a duty, but any discharge of said duty w.r.t. to the 2012 election would be moot, so it would not rule the SOS has to do something which has no meaning anymore. The best the court could rule is that the SOS will have to discharge said duty in all future elections.

john: it is Klayman’s hope that the Alabama SOS would state a declaration that Obama is (was) ineligible to be on the Alabama ballot.

What-if #3 and #4. First, that would assume the SOS is somehow not satisfied with the level of proof that already exists – either the facts that are already known or, at “best” for you birthers, he’d get another verification from Hawaii just like the other two SOS’ who asked for one.
Second, that would assume even if the SOS is somehow not satisfied, he’d be willing to morph “no sufficient proof” to “ineligible” (and make a fool out of himself trying a political manoeuver to somehow “virtually undo” the election).

What-if #5. You assume that any such statement by the AL SOS would be seen as more than another looney Republican attempt to delegitimize the result of an election. Birtherism is so dead that nothing can resurrect it – you and your ilk made sure of that by throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Obama and coming up empty. Nothing you or Zullo or anyone else could bring now would be able to change that.

john: Essentially, Obama policies would mean nothing and could essentially be rendered moot.

What-if #6. Even if everyone were somehow convinced Obama was not eligible, there’s no way to “shut down the President” without shutting down the entire legislative and executive branch in the process (because you must assume that Democrats in the Senate would still refuse to convict after impeachment by the House, so still no repeal of Obamacare etc.). But I can imagine you would like that, since most birther theories curiously involve an outcome that would render Congress, the military and most of everyday life incapable of any action (as in “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”, y’know?).

I’m not going to second guess the decision. Where there are two birther-friendly justices, there could be more. I’ve been reading an unrelated decision from Judge Moore where he writes at length in support of his view of the Christian underpinning of the law and the sanctity of marriage (this in a child support case). He even uses the word “statist.” Justice Parker in another decision talked about the seriousness of the Obama eligibility question. I could easily see a decision against McInnish that was otherwise a WorldNetDaily op ed piece on the shameful lack of vetting of presidential candidates, and the “legitimate questions” unanswered regarding Obama, or this as a minority opinion. I could imagine a document highly supportive of the birthers quest, but one that Alabama law can’t help with.

I think the amicus brief from the Alabama Democratic Party, filled with proof of Obama’s personal details, was submitted specifically to try to forestall such possible language as I described.

Bovril: The absolute best outcome that could even possibly come out of this case is that the case is affirmed 7-2 with the nutbag duo writing a whiny screed about how “something should be done”.

john: Although nothing could be done, I don’t think Obama would have much of a presidency left after such a declaration.

More to the point, although nothing apparently CAN be done (for you, John), I don’t think YOU have much of a BRAIN left, after making such a stupid declaration. The next time you make a statement that screwy, feel around your backside, and see if you can detect a prehensile tail stub, where one may have been surgically removed while you were awake, unbeknownst to you.

People forget what Klayman’s lawsuit actually is asking for. The lawsuit does not ask for a determination of Obama’s eligibility. It asks the Court to rule that the Secretary of State has an obligation to verify the eligibility of candidates for President, and it asks the Court to order the SOS to demand proof of eligibility from the candidates for the 2012 election. If the candidates fail to comply, the SOS would be required to declare that any electoral votes they received are null and void.

How a favorable ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court would help Klayman is a mystery to me. Obama would either provide the SOS with a certified copy of his birth certificate or he would just ignore the request. He received no electoral votes from Alabama so he would have nothing to lose by ignoring the request. But if he did submit a certified copy of his birth certificate, the SOS would have to accept it pursuant to Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Of course, I don’t know how Alabama could rescind its electoral votes after they have already been cast and Congress has certified them. Maybe John could try to explain that to us.

We already have real life examples of what happens in states won by Mitt Romney (and John McCain) when conservative Republican Secretaries of State acceded to birther requests to investigate Barack Obama’s eligibility before allowing his name to appear on states’ ballots.
Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach ( a Romney campaign advisor) both requested and received Certified Letters of Verification from the Hawaii state Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. and then they cleared Barack Obama for the ballot.
In Georgia, the Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp waited until the Administrative Law Judge Mahili had ruled Barack Obama was a natural born citizen before he placed Barack Obama on the ballot.

I would think that if one or more Alabama justices voted the Birther way, that it would not add one vote to Republican candidates, and just serve to remind independents that Republicans believe the world is flat, Darwin was wrong, and that women have a way with that rape thing.

As a registered Republican and a minor party official, may I kindly ask that the Alabama Supreme Court not help the RWNJs in our party, lest Indiana elect two Democratic senators.

nbc: Is it not funny that the birthers continue to pray for the improbable and no miracles happen?

They borrowed “any day now” from those who claim to know the will of their respective deity.
Thunderstorms hit a blue state – “punishment from God for voting Democrat”.
Thunderstorms hit a red state – “punishment from God for not voting Tea Party, or not leaving the union, or not repealing Obamacare, or…”.
The good old “heads, I win, tails, you lose” propaganda trick that priests and prophets have been using for millennia.

In the best of all possible worlds, rigorous application of inductive logic would be applied to examination of empirical data in order to determine what truths it might indicate. In our world, however, it is enough to denigrate anyone who disagrees with ones preconceived notions and to disregard any evidence that might lead to an alternate conclusion. In our world, where amorphous truth is daily molded into shapes to please unstable egos, and entire political ideologies exhibit symptoms of psychological pathology, empirical data and rigorous application of scientific method receive little public notice. In our world the process of seeking truth for the sake of understanding truth is subordinated to the concerted process of seeking political power. In our world the mass of humankind seem more concerned with being perceived as approving of and defending the personalities in power or those whom they wish to gain power than with examining their actions and words and measuring those by the scale of reason that Western civilization rests upon.

John Henry: In the best of all possible worlds, rigorous application of inductive logic would be applied to examination of empirical data in order to determine what truths it might indicate. In our world,

This is a discussion regarding Birthers.

I have yet to see any action indicating that Birthers have ever been concerned about logic or empirical data.

Using a rigorous application of logic, applied to the examination of empirical data leads to the conclusion that beyond any reasonable doubt, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen of the United States.

I have yet to see any action indicating that Birthers have ever been concerned about logic or empirical data.”

Sfjeff, I was under the impression that the article under discussion concerns an Alabama Supreme Court appeal of McInnish v. Chapman. The case concerns the failure of the Alabama Secretary of State to properly verify the qualifications of Presidential candidates. Considering the paucity of documentation of Mr. Obama and the overwhelming indications that the birth documents posted on the White House site are not legitimate, it seems reasonable that the Secretary of State’s failure to do her due diligence should be brought to question.

To dismiss any questioner as a “Birther” is not only rude, it provides an example of the popular substitution of ridicule of those with whom one disagrees for a reasonable examination of legitimate evidence. I have noticed that few of those whose voices join in the chorus of such ridicule have dispassionately examined the evidence of Obama’s document forgery presented in a report by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse. Fewer still have noted that the MCCCP report does not question Mr. Obama’s birth place–it merely presents evidence that seems to indicate probable cause to conclude that the documents in question are not genuine.

Do you not find it strange that many of the people who rage at the defamatory terms used to classify people by their intellectual ability, physical challenges, sexual orientation, race, etc., freely and self-righteously indulge themselves in the use of terms of disrespect for those of differing political of intellectual persuasion. To call someone who wishes to return our government to strict Constitutional limits including adherence to the Bill of Rights a TEA bagger is particularly puzzling since it categorizes the target as a practitioner of a sexual practice known to the homosexual subculture and the officially and politically correct attitude toward such sexual practice is an approving one. To call someone a “Birther” is to heap upon him or her all the scorn that has characterized all who have dared question Mr. Obama’s claims to legitimacy since the issue first entered the public awareness. Considering Mr. Obama’s comfort with repeatedly lying about his signature health care program, it seems strange that one would accept all else he has claimed as true. And yet his sycophants staunchly support his public pronouncements without question and hurl ridicule upon those who disagree. It just might be that the character of a person is tested by his willingness to join in or be cowed by such a chorus.

John Henry: I have noticed that few of those whose voices join in the chorus of such ridicule have dispassionately examined the evidence of Obama’s document forgery presented in a report by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.

John Henry: The case concerns the failure of the Alabama Secretary of State to properly verify the qualifications of Presidential candidates.

No. You’ve put a birther spin on this case, trying to turn it into something it isn’t. In fact, the case concerns whether the Secretary of State is obligated to verify the eligibility of candidates for President of the United States.

John Henry: In the best of all possible worlds, rigorous application of inductive logic would be applied to examination of empirical data in order to determine what truths it might indicate, etc., etc., etc.

John Henry: Considering the paucity of documentation of Mr. Obama and the overwhelming indications that the birth documents posted on the White House site are not legitimate, it seems reasonable that the Secretary of State’s failure to do her due diligence should be brought to question.

Okay, so it’s plain that this isn’t the best of all possible worlds, isn’t it, because in that world nobody would come up with such nonsense.

John Henry: I have noticed that few of those whose voices join in the chorus of such ridicule have dispassionately examined the evidence of Obama’s document forgery presented in a report by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.

John Henry: I have noticed that few of those whose voices join in the chorus of such ridicule have dispassionately examined the evidence of Obama’s document forgery presented in a report by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.

Moreover I have not examined the latst report of the Flat Earth Socienty. I have been terribly lax in that regard.

I was under the impression that the article under discussion concerns an Alabama Supreme Court appeal of McInnish v. Chapman.The case concerns the failure of the Alabama Secretary of State to properly verify the qualifications of Presidential candidates.Considering the paucity of documentation of Mr. Obama and the overwhelming indications that the birth documents posted on the White House site are not legitimate, it seems reasonable that the Secretary of State’s failure to do her due diligence should be brought to question.

Paucity of documentation? We have seen Obama’s short form birth certificate and his long form birth certificate, the birth announcements in the Honolulu newspapers, and the information on both birth certificates has been verified as accurate multiple times by the Hawaii Department of Health. What President has ever provided as much documentation?

As for the Alabama Secretary of State, the due diligence which was required of her is set out in Alabama law. As the lower court noted, there is nothing in Alabama election law which requires the Secretary of State to verify the eligibility of candidates for President.

To call someone a “Birther” is to heap upon him or her all the scorn that has characterized all who have dared question Mr. Obama’s claims to legitimacy since the issue first entered the public awareness.

Did you just wake up from a long hibernation? Birthers call themselves “birthers.” Have you ever been to birtherreport.com? Or birthers.org? Did you ever hear of the plans for a Birther Summit?

The reality is that birthers deserve every ounce of scorn which has been heaped upon them.

John Henry:
sfjeff, you say:
(a whole bunch of crying cut out) ….by his willingness to join in or be cowed by such a chorus.

Take your butt hurt elsewhere. People that refer to themselves as “constitutionalists” seem to know very little about it. I’d recommend reading up on the Full Faith & Credit Clause first and then visit the Hawaii Department of Health website where they link to the birth certificate posted on the White House website.

John Henry: Sfjeff, I was under the impression that the article under discussion concerns an Alabama Supreme Court appeal of McInnish v. Chapman. The case concerns the failure of the Alabama Secretary of State to properly verify the qualifications of Presidential candidates. Considering the paucity of documentation of Mr. Obama and the overwhelming indications that the birth documents posted on the White House site are not legitimate, it seems reasonable that the Secretary of State’s failure to do her due diligence should be brought to question.

There is no evidence that the SOS failed to do due diligence. As noted elsewhere at least two other state’s SOS had publicly gotten confirmation from the State of Hawaii and considered that sufficient.

There is no ‘paucity of documentation’ regarding Barack Obama. If you look at the circumstances, there was a ‘paucity of information’ regarding Mitt Romney’s eligibility, but there was none regarding Barack Obama’s.

To dismiss any questioner as a “Birther” is not only rude, it provides an example of the popular substitution of ridicule of those with whom one disagrees for a reasonable examination of legitimate evidence. I have noticed that few of those whose voices join in the chorus of such ridicule have dispassionately examined the evidence of Obama’s document forgery presented in a report by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse. Fewer still have noted that the MCCCP report does not question Mr. Obama’s birth place–it merely presents evidence that seems to indicate probable cause to conclude that the documents in question are not genuine..

In 2014, I have not seen anyone ask for a reasonable examination of legitimate evidence. regarding President Obama’s place of Birth. That question perhaps could have been legitimately asked in 2008, but not in 2013 or 2014.

Yes I call people Birthers- it is a short hand label for those who are convinced that President Obama cannot possibly be our legal President and reject all of the evidence that contradicts their obsessive belief.

I got interested in this shortly after President Obama’s inaugeration when I first heard some of the kooky Birther claims. 5 years later there are still those who make kooky Birther claims.

When Barack Obama displayed to reporters certified copies of his original birth Certificate, which were officially confirmed by the State of Hawaii, any person who could have reasonably held any rational doubts left the Birther building.

What are left are those who have proven themselves inoculated against reason, evidence and logic.

Do you not find it strange that many of the people who rage at the defamatory terms used to classify people by their intellectual ability, physical challenges, sexual orientation, race, etc., freely and self-righteously indulge themselves in the use of terms of disrespect for those of differing political of intellectual persuasion.

I have no specific issues with those who disagree with me politically or those who disagree with President Obama politically.

But Birthers want to overthrow the provisions of the United States Constitution, and that offends me- I am happy to ridicule those who make ridiculous claims about President Obama’s place of Birth, and I am happy to ridicule those who make ridiculous conspiracy theory claims in order to attack President Obama and his family.

But you see, that statement really isn’t remotely true. That is something birthers say to themselves so often that they come to think that it’s true and that it is a consensus opinion in the country. It is not.

Two secretaries of state (Bennett in Arizona and Kobach in Kansas) contacted the State of Hawaii) applied to the State of Hawaii directly and received certified verification of when and where Obama was born. When a birther says there is no evidence of where the President was born, I mention those two verifications and they reply mumbling something about no kindergarten records, but ignore the evidence and continue to maintain there is no evidence.

And birthers believe that the White House birth certificate is a phony, despite the fact that no qualified forensic document examiner has ever published a report saying that. The people who say it’s a fake are birthers who volunteered to come up with proof of what they already believed, and did not apply any recognized methodology, or verifiable technique to come up with their “conclusions.”

The Alabama Democratic Party in an Amicus brief to the Alabama Supreme Court makes the case that there is abundant evidence.of Obama’s eligibility, and that no reasonable person need look further than the public record.

I know you won’t be able to read and understand this, but I provide the link in case you want to try:

John Henry: Considering the paucity of documentation of Mr. Obama and the overwhelming indications that the birth documents posted on the White House site are not legitimate, it seems reasonable that the Secretary of State’s failure to do her due diligence should be brought to question.

You are correct that the term “teabag” is sometimes used as a slang reference to a particular sexual act. That’s why it was so hilarious when winguts began referring to themselves as teabaggers. Remember this lady who was “Teabagging 4 Jesus”? http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnypictures/ig/Funny-Protest-Signs/Teabagging-For-Jesus.htm And remember all those teabagger rallies in 2009 where people showed up with teabags attached to their hats and holding signs demanding that the government stay out of Medicare (a single-payer medical insurance program run entirely by the government and loved by teabaggers)? LOL. The term “teabagger” is a self-inflicted wound.

John Henry: Do you not find it strange that many of the people who rage at the defamatory terms used to classify people by their intellectual ability, physical challenges, sexual orientation, race, etc., freely and self-righteously indulge themselves in the use of terms of disrespect for those of differing political of intellectual persuasion.To call someone who wishes to return our government to strict Constitutional limits including adherence to the Bill of Rights a TEA bagger is particularly puzzling since it categorizes the target as a practitioner of a sexual practice known to the homosexual subculture and the officially and politically correct attitude toward such sexual practice is an approving one.

John Henry: To dismiss any questioner as a “Birther” is not only rude, it provides an example of the popular substitution of ridicule of those with whom one disagrees for a reasonable examination of legitimate evidence

No, it’s a recognition that there are people among us who are, in psychiatric terms, “completely *$%@ing nuts”, and that all attempts to reconnect them with reality via reasonable discussion have failed.

John Henry: I have noticed that few of those whose voices join in the chorus of such ridicule have dispassionately examined the evidence of Obama’s document forgery presented in a report by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.

There is no such “report”: just a few press conferences, some youtube videos, and lots of circle jerks with partisan radio hosts. After more than two years, the Clueless Clown Posse have yet to produce a simple document that says “These are the laws that were broken, and here is our evidence of that”.

And there is no “evidence of Obama’s document forgery”. None. Zip Nada. The CCP has not presented anything that could be taken into a court to say “This proves that Person X (or even persons unknown) performed an illegal act”.

The only evidence of any crime is that which shows that the CCP have committed mail fraud by misrepresenting the nature of their organization and activities to (potential) donors.

Wow! It’s been a long time since i stirred such a s**t storm of virulent vituperation. Seems there is a viper’s nest of self-righteous and unhappy souls cocked and loaded with ammo from the Obot militia. Name calling was never so standardized. Name calling is a poor substitute for actual empirical evidence. Claiming that an official checked it out and said the record exists is not empirical evidence–an official document submitted to court examination and open to public scrutiny is.

And to think, all this disagreement about birth documentation would simply disappear if a single certified birth document were to be submitted to any qualified court in the land. Oh! Then there’s the forged selective service registration card. Oh, yes, and the multiple social security numbers. And missing documentation relating to college financing. Law practice records? Maybe passport records? Wow! BO must be the least documented president in history.

Name callers with no evidence, be proud! You have totally subdued the tribe of courageous congressmen and congresswomen whose responsibility is to defend and protect the Constitution. They do not seek evidence either.

Carlorcas: Bing or Google or YouTube search of “Maricopa County Cold Case Posse Report” will do it for you.

Dr. Con.: “And birthers believe that the White House birth certificate is a phony, despite the fact that no qualified forensic document examiner has ever published a report saying that. ”

Dr.Con. and the boys: Have you followed the case presented by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse report? See note to Carlorcas.

John Henry: Everyone who posts here is very, very familiar with birther claims. Everybody who posts here watched Sheriff Joe’s press conferences. We’ve all read Mike Zullo’s affidavit (in which he very obviously perjured himself by claiming to have personal knowledge of things he could not possibly have come to know through personal experience). We’ve read all the lawsuits. We’re familiar with the wacky affidavits by crank experts. We know about all laws that will always stop birthers from ever winning anything. If you want to make the argument that people don’t take birthers seriously because they aren’t familiar with birther arguments and evidence, you are not in the right place. We don’t take birthers seriously because we know the evidence and arguments.

John Henry:
Wow!It’s been a long time since i stirred such a s**t storm of virulent vituperation.Seems there is a viper’s nest of self-righteous and unhappy souls cocked and loaded with ammo from the Obot militia.Name calling was never so standardized.Name calling is a poor substitute for actual empirical evidence.Claiming that an official checked it out and said the record exists is not empirical evidence–an official document submitted to court examination and open to public scrutiny is.

And to think, all this disagreement about birth documentation would simply disappear if a single certified birth document were to be submitted to any qualified court in the land.Oh! Then there’s the forged selective service registration card.Oh, yes, and the multiple social security numbers.And missing documentation relating to college financing.Law practice records? Maybe passport records?Wow!BO must be the least documented president in history.

Name callers with no evidence, be proud!You have totally subdued the tribe of courageous congressmen and congresswomen whose responsibility is to defend and protect the Constitution.They do not seek evidence either.

Carlorcas:Bing or Google or YouTube search of “Maricopa County Cold Case Posse Report” will do it for you.

Dr. Con.:“And birthers believe that the White House birth certificate is a phony, despite the fact that no qualified forensic document examiner has ever published a report saying that. ”

Dr.Con. and the boys:Have you followed the case presented by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse report?See note to Carlorcas.

Please show us where you demanded, or required, or in the very least even cared enough to bother to think about whether you should begin to wonder about, any of these things from any other previous President or Candidate?

To claim that these ridiculously alleged missing documents are significant, when you never cared about them for any other president, is very much a telling circumstance.

John Henry:
Wow!It’s been a long time since i stirred such a s**t storm of virulent vituperation.Seems there is a viper’s nest of self-righteous and unhappy souls cocked and loaded with ammo from the Obot militia.Name calling was never so standardized.Name calling is a poor substitute for actual empirical evidence.Claiming that an official checked it out and said the record exists is not empirical evidence–an official document submitted to court examination and open to public scrutiny is.

And to think, all this disagreement about birth documentation would simply disappear if a single certified birth document were to be submitted to any qualified court in the land.Oh! Then there’s the forged selective service registration card.Oh, yes, and the multiple social security numbers.And missing documentation relating to college financing.Law practice records? Maybe passport records?Wow!BO must be the least documented president in history.

Name callers with no evidence, be proud!You have totally subdued the tribe of courageous congressmen and congresswomen whose responsibility is to defend and protect the Constitution.They do not seek evidence either.

Carlorcas:Bing or Google or YouTube search of “Maricopa County Cold Case Posse Report” will do it for you.

Dr. Con.:“And birthers believe that the White House birth certificate is a phony, despite the fact that no qualified forensic document examiner has ever published a report saying that. ”

Dr.Con. and the boys:Have you followed the case presented by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse report?See note to Carlorcas.

Like most birthers, John Henry is embarrassingly ignorant of the facts.
There have been 220 original jurisdiction lawsuits concerning Barack Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen; there have been 92 state and federal appellate rulings and there have been 19 applications/petitions to the Supreme Court of the United States. No court has ever ruled that Barack Obama is ineligible for the office he holds. Many courts have ruled that he is eligible and that he is indeed a natural born citizen.
For example, in the Cold Case Posse’s Arizona:

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

John Henry: And missing documentation relating to college financing. Law practice records?

Not “missing”: private. Like yours, mine and every other American’s.

You get “vituperation” because you’re an obnoxious jerk who tosses out baseless accusations, and insult some of the very people who debunked those accusations by claiming they’re not familiar with them.

John Henry is also ignorant of the fact that President Obama’s attorneys have submitted a certified copy of his long form birth certificate along with a Certified Letter of Verification for that birth vital record to federal judge Henry Wingate in the Mississippi ballot challenge.
See pages 11 & 12: http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/96289285

John Henry: And to think, all this disagreement about birth documentation would simply disappear if a single certified birth document were to be submitted to any qualified court in the land. Oh! Then there’s the forged selective service registration card. Oh, yes, and the multiple social security numbers. And missing documentation relating to college financing. Law practice records? Maybe passport records? Wow! BO must be the least documented president in history.

Well….that claim is easy to examine “actual empirical evidence” that you keep claiming to want

So you tell me- what is documented about Clinton or Bush that is not documented about Obama?

Because if you are going to talk about empirical evidence- by all means- show us the empirical evidence that you used to come to the conclusion that President Obama has provided less- rather than more- prove of his eligiblity than President Bush or President Clinton.

Thank you all for your affirmation that my conception of Obots is a valid one. Please, someone, disprove the evidence presented in Maricopa County. Denying it exists won’t work. Besmirching me or anyone else will not work. What is needed is documentation and that, Mr.O will not provide.

That a court refuses to consider a case; that no court has considered a case questioning Mr. O’s lack of documentation on its merits; that loons inhabit both sides of the question; that the matter will be undecided until actual documentation is submitted–all this and more fails to impress those of you who swim in these waters. How easy it would be for BHO to simply submit his documentation if it would show him blameless. So far his submissions would not qualify him for a driver’s license in Texas.

CarlOrcas: There is no “report”. As Ron Talbott so clearly and accurately notes

Actually, I may have been mistaken: if you subscribe to WorldNutDaily, they say they’ll send you something they claim is “Sheriff Arpaio’s report”. Could be a copy of Zullo and Corsi’s e-book. Or maybe just a Volin “Sheriff’s Kit”. Or just a copy of one of the puff pieces they did. Brings a whole new meaning to “pig in a poke”…

I wonder the the Phoenix New Times people would like to do a story on Shurf Joe selling the results of his “official law enforcement investigation”.

John Henry is also ignorant of the fact that there is no law, no statute and no requirement in any state that a candidate submit a birth certificate in order to be on the ballot. Similarly, there is no requirement that a candidate reveal his draft status, his Social Security number, his student transcripts or his employment records. It is the responsibility of opposition candidates to seek out damaging information that would hurt a candidate’s chances for election and it is up to the individual voter to decide whether a candidate has been forthcoming enough to earn their vote for election to the highest office in the land.

John Henry: Thank you all for your affirmation that my conception of Obots is a valid one. Please, someone, disprove the evidence presented in Maricopa County. Denying it exists won’t work. Besmirching me or anyone else will not work. What is needed is documentation and that, Mr.O will not provide.

That a court refuses to consider a case; that no court has considered a case questioning Mr. O’s lack of documentation on its merits; that loons inhabit both sides of the question; that the matter will be undecided until actual documentation is submitted–all this and more fails to impress those of you who swim in these waters. How easy it would be for BHO to simply submit his documentation if it would show him blameless. So far his submissions would not qualify him for a driver’s license in Texas.

Frankly John, you are affirming everything we have said about Birthers.

You come here spouting all sorts of nonsense- and do not provide a single bit of documentation or evidence to support anything you have said.

For a start- why not show us what ‘evidence’ you think the stooges from Maricopa County have presented?

John Henry:
Thank you all for your affirmation that my conception of Obots is a valid one.Please, someone, disprove the evidence presented in Maricopa County.Denying it exists won’t work.Besmirching me or anyone else will not work.What is needed is documentation and that, Mr.O will not provide.

That a court refuses to consider a case; that no court has considered a case questioning Mr. O’s lack of documentation on its merits; that loons inhabit both sides of the question; that the matter will be undecided until actual documentation is submitted–all this and more fails to impress those of you who swim in these waters.How easy it would be for BHO to simply submit his documentation if it would show him blameless.So far his submissions would not qualify him for a driver’s license in Texas.

More than 300 courts have considered eligibility cases. None have ruled in the birthers’ favor. The Maricopa County Cold Case Posse has alleged crimes, felonies, such as forgery and identity theft, not civil suits for damages and yet they have NEVER turned over one bit of evidence to a prosecuting attorney.

So you tell me- what is documented about Clinton or Bush that is not documented about Obama?

Because if you are going to talk about empirical evidence- by all means- show us the empirical evidence that you used to come to the conclusion that President Obama has provided less- rather than more- prove of his eligiblity than President Bush or President Clinton.

Looks like I found a place where I am welcomed as fresh meat by a bunch of faceless Obots not concerned by the possibility that we have a President who is not qualified on many levels to hold his office. None here has presented an intelligent comment but has been more than happy to take a bite out of my backside rather than address the issue of forged or absent documentation.

I am not masochistic enough to enjoy your nightmare company further. I do hope you awake to the world of euclidean reality soon.

John Henry:
Thank you all for your affirmation that my conception of Obots is a valid one.l

To dismiss any answerer as an “Obot” is not only rude, it provides an example of the popular substitution of ridicule of those with whom one disagrees for a reasonable examination of legitimate evidence. Sound familiar?

Hypocrisy and irony make awesome bedfellows.

Have you been even remotely aware that you’re posting as a guest on a private blog?

You also might want to peruse the archives before continuing to make vapid and ridiculous assertions.

John Henry: Looks like I found a place where I am welcomed as fresh meat by a bunch of faceless Obots not concerned by the possibility that we have a President who is not qualified on many levels to hold his office. None here has presented an intelligent comment but has been more than happy to take a bite out of my backside rather than address the issue of forged or absent documentation.

I am not masochistic enough to enjoy your nightmare company further. I do hope you awake to the world of euclidean reality soon.

So you tell me- what is documented about Clinton or Bush that is not documented about Obama?

Because if you are going to talk about empirical evidence- by all means- show us the empirical evidence that you used to come to the conclusion that President Obama has provided less- rather than more- prove of his eligiblity than President Bush or President Clinton.

The Universe is not Euclidean. There literally dozens of substantive articles debunking the Cold Case Posse’s reports on this blog, and elsewhere. They have even been caught fabricating evidence and lying to cover it up. Yet you and the birthers pretend it is not so.

So you throw a mild insult and run away to where you feel safe and your prejudices are not challenged. You’re not unusual. Such is life.

John Henry: I am not masochistic enough to enjoy your nightmare company further. I do hope you awake to the world of euclidean reality soon.

Or have you been watching the Aussie Drama Rake? In the Aussie version, in the last episode of the original story ark Cleaver Greene (the eponymous 'rake' in the Aussie version) turns to the camera and quotes Kelly's famous line.

I understand the American version is getting mixed reviews, probably because of the cowardly changes to the plot for the so-called 'American sensibilities'. I can't see the need to change the name of the lead character for a start, what's wrong with 'Cleaver Greene'. Sheesh!. But who am I to say? You'll probably remake Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries‘ and turn her into a Salvation Army recruiter (seriously; look out for this show – its great fun).

I seem to have missed a passing infection … JH was all over OCT like a rash 😀 his reference to “Euclidean” reality stuck out most to me, the rest was typical birfer drivel / wannabe self-righteous self-fulfilling prophecy.

“awak[ing] to the world of euclidean reality” would be to adopt a flawed ‘alternative’ model as one’s conception of reality; i.e., to stick one’s head in the sand. Doing so is attractive to mentalities that find ‘secret’ gnawledge attractive, for its perceived sekretiveness, despite its dubiousness.

I’m surprised Vogt hasn’t written a book about it … then again, all his works on pseudosciences appear to be decades old.

John Henry proved to be another hit and run birther, utterly incapable of articulating a single substantive critique of the debunking which has been done here.

I was particularly amused by his demand for the release of Obama’s “law practice records.” He doesn’t seem to realize that Obama was never had his own law practice, so his law practice records don’t belong to him, and in any event those records could not be released without violating the client-attorney privilege. However, a few minutes with Google turned up this story:

As I knew that he would, John Henry has proven himself to be an intellectual coward lacking the intestinal fortitude to defend his beliefs. Chalk up another debating loss for the Birther Cult.

Welcome

Obama Conspiracy Theories since 2008 has been your des­tination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argu­ment with your buddies at the office? You're in the right place. Use the Search box below or check out our featured articles. If you don't agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 225,000 comments others have left. To leave a comment not on the current articles, visit the Open Thread.

Conspiracies

Conspiracies

Sometimes people leave comments designed to offend or outrage the reader, and invoke a firestorm of protest in response. These are the Internet trolls. Replying to them is feeding them and they will come back for more. Refusing to play their game encourages them to go away.